Re: Cubijano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maricel A. Cubijano was issued a temporary appointment as Court Stenographer III on July 12, 2002, which was renewed on May 21, 2003. Subsequently, on March 9, 2004, she was issued a permanent appointment. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) disapproved her permanent appointment, finding that her name did not appear in the roster of eligibles and her certificate of rating was fake. Procedural History: Cubijano's employment was terminated effective June 27, 2004, due to expiration of her term. She claimed the issue was moot and academic, asserting she acted in good faith and did not gain materially, nor did she cause damage to the government as she was not paid any salary. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended Cubijano's dismissal from the service, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and disqualification from government re-employment, opining that the use of a fake certificate of eligibility constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense that prejudiced government service by depriving it of genuinely qualified applicants.
Issue(s)
Whether Cubijano's submission of a fake certificate of eligibility constitutes dishonesty. Whether the penalty of dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from re-employment can be imposed despite the termination of Cubijano's employment.
Ruling
The Court found Maricel A. Cubijano guilty of dishonesty. In view of the termination of her employment, all her benefits, except accrued leave credits, are forfeited. She is also perpetually disqualified from re-employment in any branch of the government or its agencies, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of dishonesty: The Court held that Cubijano's submission of a fake certificate of eligibility constitutes an act of dishonesty. Dishonesty is defined as a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, which demands the highest degree of moral righteousness, integrity, uprightness, and honesty from its employees. The CSC's finding that Cubijano's name was not included in the master list of eligible examinees, despite her submission of a certificate of rating, directly supports the conclusion that the certificate was fake. Cubijano's admission that the result of her civil service examination "turned out to be fake" further solidifies this finding. The Court emphasized that the conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach, making any act of dishonesty a grave offense. On the imposition of penalties despite termination of employment: The Court ruled that even though Cubijano's employment had already been terminated and her appointment disapproved, the penalties of forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment could still be imposed. The Court cited previous rulings where similar penalties were imposed despite the respondent's resignation. The Court found Cubijano's claim of acting in good faith and not causing damage to the government to be untenable, as she was issued a temporary appointment and subsequently a permanent one, and was paid her salary during her employment. Therefore, the government service was prejudiced by being deprived of hiring genuinely qualified applicants. The penalty of forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment were deemed appropriate sanctions for the grave offense of dishonesty.
Main Doctrine
The use of a fake certificate of eligibility constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service. Even if the employment has terminated, the penalty of forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service may still be imposed.